Colonel Thomas Kwoyelo, a former commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is currently facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity before the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court in Uganda. Kwoyelo has been in detention since he was captured by the Ugandan army in 2008.
The start of Kwoyelo’s trial, however, does not appear imminent. Delays have characterized his case since 2008, the latest being an intense debate on whether or not the ICD has jurisdiction to try Kwoyelo using international criminal law for crimes committed in a domestic setting.
Kwoyelo first appeared before the ICD in 2011, but the start of his trial was delayed as a result of preliminary objections raised by his defense lawyers who argued that he was entitled to amnesty under a law in Uganda that was valid at the time of his capture. This matter was not settled until 2015, when Uganda’s Supreme Court ruled that Kwoyelo’s trial was constitutional. Thereafter, three pre-trial hearings were held in April, August, and September last year.
In 2017, three additional pre-trial hearings have been held in January, February, and March, respectively. While these latest pre-trial hearings were meant to pave way for the commencement of the trial this year, they have instead created legal challenges that have further delayed the start. Most recently, Kwoyelo’s defense counsel labelled the charges as “fatally and incurably defective.” The defense argues that the conflict in Uganda was largely domestic, and the prosecution cannot therefore charge Kwoyelo under international criminal law.
Other factors that have caused a delay in the trial include: objections by the defense that Kwoyelo is not medically fit to stand trial; a delay in translation of the charge sheet and other documents into the Acholi language; and a disagreement between the defense and the prosecution over redaction and delayed disclosure of evidence. Below is a summary of the three pre-trial hearings that have been held in 2017 and the key issues that came up.
January 31 – February 1, 2017
At this pre-trial hearing, proceedings were halted based on five objections raised by Kwoyelo’s defense team. These were:
Their client, Kwoyelo, was sick and had not been given access to medical treatment;
An amended indictment by the prosecution had been served upon the defense late on Monday, January 30;
The said indictment had not been translated into Acholi, Kwoyelo’s native language, as directed by the court at the September 2016 hearing;
Security had not been provided for the defense team as directed by the court in September 2016; and
The prosecution’s amended indictment, which contained redacted and non-disclosed evidence, had been filed in non-conformity with the ICD Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Defense counsel Caleb Alaka specifically noted that the prosecution had not complied with Rule 2(2) and (3) of the ICD Rules of Procedure and Evidence. These particular rules specify procedures that should be followed when one party wishes to redact or not disclose evidence to the other party.
In response to the above, the court ruled in favor of the defense by asking the prosecution to file a new, formal application for redaction and non-disclosure within seven days and to have it served served to all parties. The court also ordered that the indictment and other documents be translated into the Acholi language and that security be provided to the defense lawyers. (The lawyers’ request for security was based on their fear that they were handling a sensitive case that could put them at risk.) The prisons department was also ordered to allow Kwoyelo to access medical treatment. Proceedings were then adjourned to February 22.
February 22 – 23, 2017
At the second pre-trial hearing this year, the question on disclosure and redaction of evidence and whether or not to amend the charges dominated the discussion.
The prosecution requested that the court grant delayed disclosure of evidence, particularly regarding the identities of victims and witnesses and their statements. They also requested the court to allow them to produce some witnesses later during the course of the trial. The prosecution said that they sought to redact names, ages, sex, addresses, and signatures of victims and witnesses. The defense objected, noting that the witness statements that the prosecution sought to redact had already been disclosed in 2010 and in 2016. The defense noted that the application for redaction was speculative, based on conjecture and thus baseless.
In its ruling, the court granted the prosecution’s request for delayed disclosure and redaction based mainly on the fact that victims and witnesses deserved to be protected from any harm that could arise out of their participation in the trial.
The prosecution also sought permission from the court to amend the charges against Kwoyelo. The prosecution submitted that they were substituting and adding new counts under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Uganda’s Penal Code Act to have Kwoyelo charged under local laws of Uganda and to have the conflict characterized as one that is not of an international nature. The prosecution noted that they intended to bring 93 counts, 59 of which fell under customary international law. (This is an increase from the original indictment, which contained 53 charges.)
The defense objected to this request noting that the charges were highly defective and brought under the wrong laws because the original charges referred to a conflict of an international nature, yet the victims were all Ugandan.
The court agreed that the original charges stated that the alleged crimes occurred in the context of an international, not domestic, armed conflict. The court, however, noted that this notwithstanding, the concise statement of the facts clearly described offenses committed only within the borders of Uganda.
In its ruling, the court granted the prosecution’s request for alteration of the indictment and adjourned proceedings to March 14.
March 14 – 16, 2017
From March 14 to 16, another pre-trial hearing was convened with the major objective of reading and confirming the charges against Kwoyelo based on the amended indictment by the prosecution. The new indictment contained 93 counts, 59 of which were appearing under customary international law and the others under the Penal Code Act of Uganda’s Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
After reading of the charges, Kwoyelo’s defense lawyers raised an objection in regard to the application of customary international law in the Uganda legal jurisprudence.
The defense noted that the charges raised “extremely serious” and “grave concerns,” not only in the manner in which they were presented, but also in the substance contained in the indictment. In the words of Alaka, Kwoyelo’s defense lawyer, the indictment “created double jeopardy, was unconstitutional, and thus defective and illegal basing on technical and legal grounds.”
In explaining the comments above, the defense said that the charges brought against Kwoyelo under customary international law were inconsistent with and/or in contravention of the Uganda’s constitution. The defense noted that under Uganda’s constitution, the principle of legality requires that an offense be defined by law and a penalty prescribed for it accordingly. The defense argued that those crimes under customary international law, and in particular inhumane acts such as enslavement, rape, murder, or torture were not clearly defined in Uganda’s constitution.
In reply to objections raised by the defense, the prosecution sought an adjournment to give them time to prepare an appropriate response. The presiding judge then adjourned proceedings to the following day, Wednesday, March 15. However, when proceedings resumed, the prosecution was not prepared, so another adjournment had to be made.
On Thursday, March 16, the prosecution again sought an adjournment, saying they needed a longer period of time to prepare their response. They based their request for more time on the basis that international criminal law was a new field in Ugandan jurisprudence, mainly brought about by the creation of the ICD and the case of Thomas Kwoyelo.
“International Criminal Law is a new and challenging area with a lot of authority and concepts needed, so we find the time provided insufficient for us to do the work. We hope our request for more time does not go against the interest of justice owing to the fact that it is a new area of jurisprudence,” said Charles Kaamuli the lead prosecutor.
With no objections from the defense, the court adjourned proceedings to May 9.
With Kwoyelo having been in detention for close to nine years now, a further adjournment of his case has created more uncertainty about the start of the trial. It remains to be seen whether the main phase of the trial will be handled expeditiously when, or if, it begins.
Lino Owor Ogora is a peace-building practitioner who has worked with victims of conflict in northern Uganda since 2006. He is also the Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
Why Community Members in Barlonyo ‘Feel Left Out’ of the Ongwen Trial
Located 26 kilometers north of Lira town is the tranquil village of Barlonyo. It is a quiet trading center that lies inconspicuously next to the River Moroto, in Lira district, in the Lango sub-region of Uganda. Behind its quiet and tranquil facade, Barlonyo harbors a dark past brought about by a massacre perpetrated by rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in February 2004. For this reason, Barlonyo is also home to a monument bearing the remains of 121 LRA victims.
Late in the afternoon on February 21, 2004, LRA rebels, allegedly under the leadership of Okot Odhiambo, attacked the Barlonyo internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camp, subdued the small contingent of Ugandan government soldiers based there, and engaged in a burning and pillaging spree that left hundreds of civilians dead. According to the Justice and Reconciliation Project’s 2009 report on the Barlonyo massacre, camp residents were burned alive inside their homes, hacked, stabbed, clubbed and shot. The bellies of pregnant women were slit open, with their babies thrown into the fires. Those who were not killed were abducted and marched north into Acholi land where many died in captivity. LRA Commander Okot Odhiambo allegedly ordered his soldiers to “kill every living thing.” In the space of less than three hours, over 300 people were brutally murdered and an unknown number were abducted.
While official narratives indicate that Odhiambo led the attack, residents of Barlonyo strongly claim that Ongwen was also present. Ongwen is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC), charged with 70 counts of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, allegedly committed in the four former IDP camps of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok. Barlonyo does not feature anywhere in his indictment, a factor that has not gone down well with many community members living there. In interactions with community members of Barlonyo in May 2016, and a follow-up visit in February 2017, the following perspectives emerged on why they feel left out Ongwen’s trial.
The residents of Barlonyo felt that Ongwen played a key role in the 2004 attack on their village. A community member who was present during the Barlonyo massacre remarked, “We saw him [Ongwen] during the attack on Barlonyo. LRA soldiers came shouting his name when they attacked us, so it is not clear why Barlonyo wasn’t included among the communities where he operated.” Another individual who was also present during the massacre noted: “I saw Ongwen three times. I saw him physically.”
One community member provided a brief narrative of the massacre saying, “The LRA camped in a nearby village. They came in two groups and surrounded the camp and started shooting on the soldiers, who were very few. The soldiers were overpowered and ran away. His [Ongwen’s] name was being mentioned time and time again when people were torching houses. They were shouting his name and shouting that every living thing will be finished. They were blowing whistles and making a lot of noise. Some were abducted that day and [upon returning] confirmed that they saw Dominic Ongwen and Okot Odhiambo.”
Despite the above claims, Barlonyo does not feature in the list of incidents that Ongwen is currently charged with. Furthermore, it is also a known fact that Barlonyo was one of the key investigative locations for the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in the early days of the investigation in northern Uganda. According to those interviewed and public records, it had in the past been targeted by ICC investigations.
Community members could therefore not understand why, despite this evident local knowledge, Barlonyo had been excluded from the incident selection of the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). As one male participant noted, “Barlonyo’s name is not mentioned [in the ICC indictment]. The evidence is clear, so why is Barlonyo not included? The ICC comes here every time asking for information from victims, but Barlonyo is still excluded. Even Bensouda [Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the ICC] was here but nothing has been done.”
Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, explained the OTP’s position as follows: “[W]hen they [OTP] were bringing charges against Dominic Ongwen it was guided and constrained by the evidence in its possession… During the OTP outreach in Barlonyo in 2015 and 2016, the OTP explained that they had no evidence of Ongwen’s presence in Barlonyo and there was an appeal for anyone who could provide such evidence to do so. The OTP field investigators interacted with many villagers thereafter and still came up with nothing.”
In addition, the community members also claimed that despite having had several interactions with the ICC field outreach teams they had never received an explanation as to why Barlonyo was not included in Ongwen’s indictment. As declared by one community leader we spoke to: “All of us have met the ICC. They came several times starting from the beginning of the case [against the LRA in northern Uganda].” However, with Ongwen not being charged with any crimes that occurred in the village, it appeared that the appreciation for these interactions may have dwindled. Echoing what seemed to be a shared opinion, the same elder said that “the ICC should not come back here to do screenings and outreach again, if Barlonyo is not included.”
The ICC did confirm that several outreach events and meetings have taken place in Barlonyo before Ongwen’s transfer to the court and after but refutes the claim that no explanation was provided as to why the village was not included in the indictment. “The Prosecutor visited Barlonyo after the surrender of Ongwen and held a community outreach meeting with them. The Prosecutor explained the scope of the case and why it was limited to Lukodi at the time,” said Kamara.
Another concern that emerged from my Barlonyo consultations was that Ongwen is represented by a lawyer originally from Lango sub-region where Barlonyo is located. One community member said, “We have seen lawyers defending Ongwen, but the truth is that he committed terrible atrocities. Despite that we only see him defended. Krispus Ayena Odongo [one of Ongwen’s lawyers] is a man from Lango. We are not happy he is defending him. Krispus Ayena is defending Ongwen, even though he knows Ongwen committed atrocities even against his own people. He only wants money.” Under international law and the rules of the ICC, Ongwen has a right to counsel. Community members however did not view it in this way and associated the involvement of Odongo with financial gain.
It is not surprising, therefore, that when asked to explain what specific expectations they may have of the Ongwen trial, the Barlonyo community focused on their fears: the fear of not being recognized as a place of atrocity and suffering, the fear of being excluded from any possible reparation scheme as well as the fear that justice would never be realized for the victims of the Barlonyo massacre. One member had a different take, suggesting that the Ugandan government should be held accountable for the Barlonyo massacre. He said, “If Dominic Ongwen wins the case, the government of Uganda will stand to answer because they had the responsibility to protect their citizens. We will take the government to court.”
However, the community members reluctantly conceded the fact that Ongwen is being tried also for thematic crimes, i.e. crimes not related to specific incidents but rather to specific types of conduct, such as the LRA practice of committing sexual and gender-based violence and of using of child soldiers, is a positive development that they hope will also cover Barlonyo.
Overall, despite Barlonyo’s exclusion from the charges against Ongwen, the community members in Barlonyo confirmed their belief in his overall responsibility and in the value of his trial. At the same time, they stated their clear disappointment at not being included in the trial process and expressed a request to be “told” who had committed atrocities in their village, if not Ongwen.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Late in the afternoon on February 21, 2004, LRA rebels, allegedly under the leadership of Okot Odhiambo, attacked the Barlonyo internally displaced persons’ (IDP) camp, subdued the small contingent of Ugandan government soldiers based there, and engaged in a burning and pillaging spree that left hundreds of civilians dead. According to the Justice and Reconciliation Project’s 2009 report on the Barlonyo massacre, camp residents were burned alive inside their homes, hacked, stabbed, clubbed and shot. The bellies of pregnant women were slit open, with their babies thrown into the fires. Those who were not killed were abducted and marched north into Acholi land where many died in captivity. LRA Commander Okot Odhiambo allegedly ordered his soldiers to “kill every living thing.” In the space of less than three hours, over 300 people were brutally murdered and an unknown number were abducted.
While official narratives indicate that Odhiambo led the attack, residents of Barlonyo strongly claim that Ongwen was also present. Ongwen is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC), charged with 70 counts of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, allegedly committed in the four former IDP camps of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok. Barlonyo does not feature anywhere in his indictment, a factor that has not gone down well with many community members living there. In interactions with community members of Barlonyo in May 2016, and a follow-up visit in February 2017, the following perspectives emerged on why they feel left out Ongwen’s trial.
The residents of Barlonyo felt that Ongwen played a key role in the 2004 attack on their village. A community member who was present during the Barlonyo massacre remarked, “We saw him [Ongwen] during the attack on Barlonyo. LRA soldiers came shouting his name when they attacked us, so it is not clear why Barlonyo wasn’t included among the communities where he operated.” Another individual who was also present during the massacre noted: “I saw Ongwen three times. I saw him physically.”
One community member provided a brief narrative of the massacre saying, “The LRA camped in a nearby village. They came in two groups and surrounded the camp and started shooting on the soldiers, who were very few. The soldiers were overpowered and ran away. His [Ongwen’s] name was being mentioned time and time again when people were torching houses. They were shouting his name and shouting that every living thing will be finished. They were blowing whistles and making a lot of noise. Some were abducted that day and [upon returning] confirmed that they saw Dominic Ongwen and Okot Odhiambo.”
Despite the above claims, Barlonyo does not feature in the list of incidents that Ongwen is currently charged with. Furthermore, it is also a known fact that Barlonyo was one of the key investigative locations for the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in the early days of the investigation in northern Uganda. According to those interviewed and public records, it had in the past been targeted by ICC investigations.
Community members could therefore not understand why, despite this evident local knowledge, Barlonyo had been excluded from the incident selection of the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). As one male participant noted, “Barlonyo’s name is not mentioned [in the ICC indictment]. The evidence is clear, so why is Barlonyo not included? The ICC comes here every time asking for information from victims, but Barlonyo is still excluded. Even Bensouda [Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the ICC] was here but nothing has been done.”
Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, explained the OTP’s position as follows: “[W]hen they [OTP] were bringing charges against Dominic Ongwen it was guided and constrained by the evidence in its possession… During the OTP outreach in Barlonyo in 2015 and 2016, the OTP explained that they had no evidence of Ongwen’s presence in Barlonyo and there was an appeal for anyone who could provide such evidence to do so. The OTP field investigators interacted with many villagers thereafter and still came up with nothing.”
In addition, the community members also claimed that despite having had several interactions with the ICC field outreach teams they had never received an explanation as to why Barlonyo was not included in Ongwen’s indictment. As declared by one community leader we spoke to: “All of us have met the ICC. They came several times starting from the beginning of the case [against the LRA in northern Uganda].” However, with Ongwen not being charged with any crimes that occurred in the village, it appeared that the appreciation for these interactions may have dwindled. Echoing what seemed to be a shared opinion, the same elder said that “the ICC should not come back here to do screenings and outreach again, if Barlonyo is not included.”
The ICC did confirm that several outreach events and meetings have taken place in Barlonyo before Ongwen’s transfer to the court and after but refutes the claim that no explanation was provided as to why the village was not included in the indictment. “The Prosecutor visited Barlonyo after the surrender of Ongwen and held a community outreach meeting with them. The Prosecutor explained the scope of the case and why it was limited to Lukodi at the time,” said Kamara.
Another concern that emerged from my Barlonyo consultations was that Ongwen is represented by a lawyer originally from Lango sub-region where Barlonyo is located. One community member said, “We have seen lawyers defending Ongwen, but the truth is that he committed terrible atrocities. Despite that we only see him defended. Krispus Ayena Odongo [one of Ongwen’s lawyers] is a man from Lango. We are not happy he is defending him. Krispus Ayena is defending Ongwen, even though he knows Ongwen committed atrocities even against his own people. He only wants money.” Under international law and the rules of the ICC, Ongwen has a right to counsel. Community members however did not view it in this way and associated the involvement of Odongo with financial gain.
It is not surprising, therefore, that when asked to explain what specific expectations they may have of the Ongwen trial, the Barlonyo community focused on their fears: the fear of not being recognized as a place of atrocity and suffering, the fear of being excluded from any possible reparation scheme as well as the fear that justice would never be realized for the victims of the Barlonyo massacre. One member had a different take, suggesting that the Ugandan government should be held accountable for the Barlonyo massacre. He said, “If Dominic Ongwen wins the case, the government of Uganda will stand to answer because they had the responsibility to protect their citizens. We will take the government to court.”
However, the community members reluctantly conceded the fact that Ongwen is being tried also for thematic crimes, i.e. crimes not related to specific incidents but rather to specific types of conduct, such as the LRA practice of committing sexual and gender-based violence and of using of child soldiers, is a positive development that they hope will also cover Barlonyo.
Overall, despite Barlonyo’s exclusion from the charges against Ongwen, the community members in Barlonyo confirmed their belief in his overall responsibility and in the value of his trial. At the same time, they stated their clear disappointment at not being included in the trial process and expressed a request to be “told” who had committed atrocities in their village, if not Ongwen.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Thursday, 23 February 2017
Stocktaking: Reactions to Ongwen’s Trial Thus Far
It has been over two months since the trial of Dominic Ongwen started at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands. Once a commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), Ongwen is charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the former Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps of Lukodi, Odek, Pajule, and Abok in northern Uganda. His trial began on December 6, 2016, with opening statements from the ICC prosecutor and lawyers representing victims in the case. On January 16, the main phase of the trial commenced with the prosecution presenting its first witness. On February 3, Presiding Judge Bertram Schmitt announced that the court would take a three weeks’ break with trial proceedings resuming on February 27.
This article presents a brief summary of perceptions and opinions from people in northern Uganda based on what has transpired in the three weeks of witness testimony. It is based on consultations with 20 community members, civil society organization (CSO) representatives, and local leaders in northern Uganda regarding their impression about the trial thus far. The questions posed to them specifically rotated around four areas: if they had been following the trial or not; what they thought about the progress made so far; if they thought that the trial was on the right track; and any other general thoughts and recommendations they had.
The majority of the people who were consulted said they had been following the trial, although they also admitted they had not been doing so on a full-time basis. They cited reasons ranging from inability to access internet connectivity for viewing the trial, to being too pre-occupied with other matters. Five out of the 20 people consulted were straightforward in saying they had not been following the trial at all.
The overall majority of those consulted thought the trial was proceeding well. One community member commended the ICC for having got the trial underway on time. In his words, “The ICC has done a good job in ensuring that Ongwen’s trial starts on time. If you compare with the trial of [Thomas] Kwoyelo [the former LRA commander currently on trial in Uganda], which has stalled since 2008 then you can clearly see that the ICC is more effective than our Ugandan courts.”
Other people thought the prosecution was doing a good job. Susan, a lawyer and CSO representative said, “So far, so good. The prosecution is presenting its case well with strong evidence. I am optimistic that the trial will go well.”
Patrick, another CSO representative said, “The prosecution has presented its evidence well so far, but it is too early to tell whether it will be enough. We need to wait and see how Ongwen’s defense lawyers will argue.”
According to Gibson, a community member from Lukodi, “The narrative about what happened during the attack on our village and other places is being presented well by the prosecution, which is a sign that the court is dealing with the truth.”
Despite a general consensus that the trial was proceeding well, some people expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s first expert witness to testify. Tim Allen, a professor at the London School of Economics, testified on January 16 about a report he wrote for the prosecution explaining how the conflict in northern Uganda began and the LRA’s role in that conflict. Allen was called as an expert witness because he has been researching the LRA and northern Uganda since the 1980s. Some people felt he was not the ideal witness based on the fact that his knowledge of the conflict is theoretical and research based. Many people claimed they were hearing about him for the first time.
In the words of Eli, a CSO representative, “The trial is turning out to be artificial because how do you call a professor from London to testify in a trial where he has not experienced even a hint of the suffering that people went through. I will not be surprised if this professor has never stepped in northern Uganda. If he has, then it was probably for research purposes. This makes the trial look artificial. I do not think the ICC could fail to get an expert from northern Uganda who has also physically experienced the conflict.”
Susan agreed with Eli by saying, “There is a disconnect between witnesses and victims on the ground. I do not think a foreign researcher who has been to Uganda only for purposes of research would be the ideal witness.”
An issue of concern expressed by almost everyone I spoke to was the slow pace at which the trial was progressing. Almost all the people who had been following the trial thought it was proceeding too slowly for their liking. For example while expressing optimism about the prosecution’s efficiency, Susan was also quick note that, “The trial is progressing too slowly. I understand that the prosecution intends to call over 60 witnesses. But at the current pace the trial will drag through the next five years. I noticed that the first expert witness [Tim Allen] took up an entire two days just to describe the background of the conflict in northern Uganda. While it is important that the evidence is presented in detail, time should also be managed,” she said.
Joyce Sebit, the director of a CSO called Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative noted that, “The trial is taking too long. The communities are grumbling that the speed at which the trial is proceeding is not good enough. They are saying that the trial should be finished quickly so that communities rest.”
Joyce’s opinion was shared by Eli who noted that, “A delay in finalizing the trial means a delay in effecting reparations for the victims. Many people are saying that the trial is delaying and they just want the trial to end so that they can be compensated, but this cannot take place until the trial is finished. The delay, therefore, does not correspond to their sense of justice.”
Gibson from Lukodi was not happy about the speed at which the trial is progressing. “The court [ICC] is delaying. If possible they should at least provide assistance to the victims as we wait for the verdict. Some of the victims are dying off, while others are being reminded of what happened as the trial progresses.”
Fred, another CSO representative noted that, “The community members do not understand the cause of the delay, and this is reducing their interest in following the proceedings, while increasing their mistrust in the court.”
It should be noted that the Trust Fund for Victims has had ongoing projects in northern Uganda, although their reach is limited and not specific to victims in the Ongwen trial. Furthermore, despite the fact that the ICC outreach team in Uganda has repeatedly explained to victims and communities in northern Uganda that the trial would be prolonged; complaints about the slow pace at which the trial was progressing were repeated by respondents. The speed of the trial will likely remain a difficult point for victims to accept for the duration of the trial.
There are still many people who strongly believe that Ongwen deserves forgiveness based on the unique circumstances surrounding his abduction and role in the LRA. These opinions emerged during their assessment of the trial so far. Bishop Macleod Baker Ochola, the retired Bishop of Kitgum Diocese in northern Uganda said, “I cannot provide an assessment of a trial which in my opinion is not right. If Ongwen was abducted then he is a victim of circumstances. His humanity was destroyed and he became a killing machine. He is like a tree that was planted inside a dark house. Such a tree will never be the same as other trees. In saying Ongwen should be tried, the world is worse than the LRA that committed the atrocities in northern Uganda.”
Patrick agreed with Bishop Ochola by saying, “While Ongwen should not be completely exonerated of all guilt, the circumstances of his abduction should be taken into consideration by the prosecution.”
In the opinion of Joyce, “The ICC judges need to be careful when passing judgment because people in the communities still have mixed reactions about whether Ongwen should be punished not. Their opinions are not harmonized”.
Eli noted that, “People in the communities are reacting differently to the trial of Ongwen because they have different perspectives on what justice means. Some people still feel Ongwen should not be tried. Others think he should tried at home in Uganda.”
In line with Eli’s last comments, three other people expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the court was being held far away in The Hague, a factor which they felt did not allow victims to participate effectively. James, a CSO representative from Teso pleaded that, “At least one session of the trial should be held in Uganda. We don’t mind if all the rest are held in The Hague.”
Bernard, another CSO represented noted that, “Some people feel like they should have attended in person, but unfortunately they cannot because of the distance.”
The ICC declined to hold the confirmation of charges proceedings and opening statements of the trial in northern Uganda, notwithstanding recommendations from lawyers in case. However, in the latter decision, judges were open to the idea of a judicial site visit at a later stage of the proceedings.
Despite the slow pace at which witnesses are being examined and the mixed reactions regarding whether or not Ongwen should be on trial, many people overall believed that the trial was proceeding well as demonstrated by the above opinions. Ongwen’s trial resumes on Monday, February 27. It remains to be seen how the people of northern Uganda will react to the trial of Ongwen in the long run.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
This article presents a brief summary of perceptions and opinions from people in northern Uganda based on what has transpired in the three weeks of witness testimony. It is based on consultations with 20 community members, civil society organization (CSO) representatives, and local leaders in northern Uganda regarding their impression about the trial thus far. The questions posed to them specifically rotated around four areas: if they had been following the trial or not; what they thought about the progress made so far; if they thought that the trial was on the right track; and any other general thoughts and recommendations they had.
The majority of the people who were consulted said they had been following the trial, although they also admitted they had not been doing so on a full-time basis. They cited reasons ranging from inability to access internet connectivity for viewing the trial, to being too pre-occupied with other matters. Five out of the 20 people consulted were straightforward in saying they had not been following the trial at all.
The overall majority of those consulted thought the trial was proceeding well. One community member commended the ICC for having got the trial underway on time. In his words, “The ICC has done a good job in ensuring that Ongwen’s trial starts on time. If you compare with the trial of [Thomas] Kwoyelo [the former LRA commander currently on trial in Uganda], which has stalled since 2008 then you can clearly see that the ICC is more effective than our Ugandan courts.”
Other people thought the prosecution was doing a good job. Susan, a lawyer and CSO representative said, “So far, so good. The prosecution is presenting its case well with strong evidence. I am optimistic that the trial will go well.”
Patrick, another CSO representative said, “The prosecution has presented its evidence well so far, but it is too early to tell whether it will be enough. We need to wait and see how Ongwen’s defense lawyers will argue.”
According to Gibson, a community member from Lukodi, “The narrative about what happened during the attack on our village and other places is being presented well by the prosecution, which is a sign that the court is dealing with the truth.”
Despite a general consensus that the trial was proceeding well, some people expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s first expert witness to testify. Tim Allen, a professor at the London School of Economics, testified on January 16 about a report he wrote for the prosecution explaining how the conflict in northern Uganda began and the LRA’s role in that conflict. Allen was called as an expert witness because he has been researching the LRA and northern Uganda since the 1980s. Some people felt he was not the ideal witness based on the fact that his knowledge of the conflict is theoretical and research based. Many people claimed they were hearing about him for the first time.
In the words of Eli, a CSO representative, “The trial is turning out to be artificial because how do you call a professor from London to testify in a trial where he has not experienced even a hint of the suffering that people went through. I will not be surprised if this professor has never stepped in northern Uganda. If he has, then it was probably for research purposes. This makes the trial look artificial. I do not think the ICC could fail to get an expert from northern Uganda who has also physically experienced the conflict.”
Susan agreed with Eli by saying, “There is a disconnect between witnesses and victims on the ground. I do not think a foreign researcher who has been to Uganda only for purposes of research would be the ideal witness.”
An issue of concern expressed by almost everyone I spoke to was the slow pace at which the trial was progressing. Almost all the people who had been following the trial thought it was proceeding too slowly for their liking. For example while expressing optimism about the prosecution’s efficiency, Susan was also quick note that, “The trial is progressing too slowly. I understand that the prosecution intends to call over 60 witnesses. But at the current pace the trial will drag through the next five years. I noticed that the first expert witness [Tim Allen] took up an entire two days just to describe the background of the conflict in northern Uganda. While it is important that the evidence is presented in detail, time should also be managed,” she said.
Joyce Sebit, the director of a CSO called Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative noted that, “The trial is taking too long. The communities are grumbling that the speed at which the trial is proceeding is not good enough. They are saying that the trial should be finished quickly so that communities rest.”
Joyce’s opinion was shared by Eli who noted that, “A delay in finalizing the trial means a delay in effecting reparations for the victims. Many people are saying that the trial is delaying and they just want the trial to end so that they can be compensated, but this cannot take place until the trial is finished. The delay, therefore, does not correspond to their sense of justice.”
Gibson from Lukodi was not happy about the speed at which the trial is progressing. “The court [ICC] is delaying. If possible they should at least provide assistance to the victims as we wait for the verdict. Some of the victims are dying off, while others are being reminded of what happened as the trial progresses.”
Fred, another CSO representative noted that, “The community members do not understand the cause of the delay, and this is reducing their interest in following the proceedings, while increasing their mistrust in the court.”
It should be noted that the Trust Fund for Victims has had ongoing projects in northern Uganda, although their reach is limited and not specific to victims in the Ongwen trial. Furthermore, despite the fact that the ICC outreach team in Uganda has repeatedly explained to victims and communities in northern Uganda that the trial would be prolonged; complaints about the slow pace at which the trial was progressing were repeated by respondents. The speed of the trial will likely remain a difficult point for victims to accept for the duration of the trial.
There are still many people who strongly believe that Ongwen deserves forgiveness based on the unique circumstances surrounding his abduction and role in the LRA. These opinions emerged during their assessment of the trial so far. Bishop Macleod Baker Ochola, the retired Bishop of Kitgum Diocese in northern Uganda said, “I cannot provide an assessment of a trial which in my opinion is not right. If Ongwen was abducted then he is a victim of circumstances. His humanity was destroyed and he became a killing machine. He is like a tree that was planted inside a dark house. Such a tree will never be the same as other trees. In saying Ongwen should be tried, the world is worse than the LRA that committed the atrocities in northern Uganda.”
Patrick agreed with Bishop Ochola by saying, “While Ongwen should not be completely exonerated of all guilt, the circumstances of his abduction should be taken into consideration by the prosecution.”
In the opinion of Joyce, “The ICC judges need to be careful when passing judgment because people in the communities still have mixed reactions about whether Ongwen should be punished not. Their opinions are not harmonized”.
Eli noted that, “People in the communities are reacting differently to the trial of Ongwen because they have different perspectives on what justice means. Some people still feel Ongwen should not be tried. Others think he should tried at home in Uganda.”
In line with Eli’s last comments, three other people expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the court was being held far away in The Hague, a factor which they felt did not allow victims to participate effectively. James, a CSO representative from Teso pleaded that, “At least one session of the trial should be held in Uganda. We don’t mind if all the rest are held in The Hague.”
Bernard, another CSO represented noted that, “Some people feel like they should have attended in person, but unfortunately they cannot because of the distance.”
The ICC declined to hold the confirmation of charges proceedings and opening statements of the trial in northern Uganda, notwithstanding recommendations from lawyers in case. However, in the latter decision, judges were open to the idea of a judicial site visit at a later stage of the proceedings.
Despite the slow pace at which witnesses are being examined and the mixed reactions regarding whether or not Ongwen should be on trial, many people overall believed that the trial was proceeding well as demonstrated by the above opinions. Ongwen’s trial resumes on Monday, February 27. It remains to be seen how the people of northern Uganda will react to the trial of Ongwen in the long run.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Relatives in Coorom Say Ongwen Deserves Forgiveness
Approximately 40 kilometers north of Gulu town lies the little village of Coorom, located in Lamogi Sub-County, Amuru District, Uganda. Coorom is the home of Dominic Ongwen, the former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who is currently on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands.
Prior to the capture Ongwen in 2015, Coorom was just another quiet and tranquil village in post-conflict northern Uganda, struggling to re-establish itself after many years of fighting. However, after the capture of Ongwen, Coorom has risen to prominence, attracting researchers and transitional justice practitioners. In addition, since the trial of Ongwen started in December 2016, the ICC field office in Uganda has ensured that trial proceedings are screened to the residents of Coorom. Given that Coorom is largely inhabited by Ongwen’s kinsmen, this move by the ICC has attracted criticism from some people, especially those who consider themselves victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes. This criticism is even more pronounced given that many people in Coorom that I spoke to think Ongwen deserves to be forgiven.
Asked why the court decided to conduct outreach in Coorom, Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda explained, “In addition to ensuring that victims and affected communities that fall within the scope of the case are provided adequate information and access to the proceedings against Dominic Ongwen, the outreach program also makes efforts to reach out to supporters or sympathizer communities and groups that show huge interest in following the proceedings. Coorom, being the birth place of Ongwen is therefore a community that has to see ’justice in motion’ – the conduct of a fair and transparent trial in a manner that guarantees due respect to the rights of all the parties and participants in the proceedings.”
The people of Coorom seem to be happy with this move by the ICC. “If anyone told me that Ongwen was so well dressed and can even take notes, I would have dismissed that as a lie. Now I see, therefore I believe,’’ said another community leader during one of the screening sessions.
I traveled to Coorom in late January to have a direct interaction with the residents there. While many of the people I interacted with were happy to be following the proceedings as a result of the initiative by the ICC, many were also direct and straightforward in voicing their opinion that Ongwen should be forgiven.
Just before I arrived in Coorom, I stopped at a large trading center called Olwal and approached a group of three youthful bodaboda (motorcycle) taxi riders who were seated by the roadside, greeted them, introduced myself, and engaged them in a friendly chat. One of the young men who identified himself as Robinson told me they had heard of the trial of Ongwen but had not had time to attend any of the community screening events being organized by the ICC field office. I asked them why, and one of his other colleagues called Godfrey told me they were too busy working to attend the trial. Another young man called Alfred who had joined us said he had been following the proceedings on and off through the radio.
We chatted for a while as I updated them about the trial of Ongwen, but there appeared to be little enthusiasm on their part. I then told them I was heading to Coorom to talk to the people there about the trial. In a move that surprised me, they immediately offered to come with me on condition that I would drop them off on my way back. I accepted as this was an opportunity to further chat with them about the trial. They piled into the car and we set off.
After we had driven for about a minute or two in silence, I asked them why they did not seem to be enthusiastic about following the trial of Ongwen.
Robinson, who was seated next to me in the front passenger seat, replied: “This trial is taking place in The Hague, at a very high level. It makes it very difficult for us to follow closely. Many people are also saying that he [Ongwen] is going to lose since he is being tried by a big court [the ICC].” His response attracted a laugh from his two colleagues in the back seat.
I then asked the other two what their opinion about the trial was. Godfrey said, “In my opinion, I think Ongwen should be forgiven because he was acting under orders of people higher than him. I am also told that he was abducted at a young age.”
Alfred concurred with Godfrey by saying, “Ongwen cannot be compared to Joseph Kony who started the war and formed the LRA. I heard that when Ongwen was asked by the judge to respond to the charges against him, he said it was the LRA to blame for all what happened and not him as an individual. I think I agree with him.”
Interestingly, the above opinion was what I would repeatedly hear from many people in Coorom for the next hour I was to spend there. We continued chatting as we drove, and a few minutes later we got to the small trading center that was the village of Ongwen. The trading center itself was so small, with only a few kiosks and huts in sight given that many people lived in the outskirts. It was also deserted with only a few women selling goods in the nearby market.
My arrival did not go unnoticed. I was soon surrounded by a group of youth and a few elderly people. I explained my mission to them and asked if they were comfortable chatting about the trial. No one had any objections, I spent the next hour casually chatting with them and walking around the trading center as I took notes. I narrowed my questions down to asking them their opinion about the ongoing trial of Ongwen and what they thought about the outreach being conducted by the ICC.
Generally, many people I talked to were happy with the live screenings being conducted by the ICC field office. A local leader said, “At least our fears are reduced when we see him in court, alive and healthy.” His opinion concurred with an earlier conversation I had had with Kamara where she had noted that, “They [people of Coorom] feel reassured seeing that Ongwen is well taken care of at the ICC and that he has a lawyer that represents his interests.”
A general consensus, however, seemed to be that Ongwen should be forgiven. The people cited reasons ranging from the fact that he was abducted and forced to fight, to saying he was acting under orders from Joseph Kony, and that he was not the only LRA commander to have committed crimes in northern Uganda.
One young man who identified himself as Jackson told me that “the program [live screening] by the ICC is enabling us to follow what is happening at the court, and we are grateful for that. However, many people are praying that Ongwen wins the case.”
Another young man called Patrick chipped in and said, “Ongwen should be forgiven because he did not join the LRA willingly. He also did not commit the crimes alone.”
I asked them why the majority of the people in Coorom were in favor of having Ongwen forgiven and if there were any people who had expressed a contrary opinion. Jackson replied before anyone else by saying, “Ongwen is our relative and the majority of people here are related to him.” A local leader called Mukora explained more patiently that “the majority of people here say he should be forgiven because he was abducted while young, but there are some few people who say he should be tried and convicted.”
In my short interaction with the few people I met in Coorom, I was not able to come across anyone with a contrary opinion.
I then asked them if they would be comfortable with having Ongwen coming back to live among them in the event that he was acquitted. This attracted mixed reactions, but the majority of people seemed to have no problem with Ongwen returning to live among them. A young man called Owiny replied, “It will be his choice. If he wants to come back and live here we shall welcome him.” Another young man called Patrick said, “I am not sure if Ongwen will want to come back and live in northern Uganda. I am sure he will be afraid because of the crimes he accused of committing. If he chooses to return to Uganda I think he will not stay in northern Uganda.”
I finally asked them how they would react to a guilty verdict given that the majority of the people in Coorom were calling for Ongwen to be forgiven.
The local leader called Mukora replied, “The people should not be saddened by a guilty verdict because that is part of the law. I only pray that people are properly sensitized on why he was convicted then they will accept the verdict.” His opinion was shared by many other people present.
Robinson, my new friend from the trip had the last word saying, “People in Coorom will not be happy with a guilty verdict, however, the law is the law and there is nothing we can do. The people will only need to understand why he had to be convicted. We also pray that if he is convicted they give him a sentence that takes into consideration the fact that he was abducted.”
As the trial of Ongwen continues, the above opinions from the people of Coorom indicate the mixed reactions that people in northern Uganda have had. It is also an indicator of the need for continuous outreach even in the aftermath of the trial. As significantly noted by Kamara, “The screening of the trial in such a community does not only bring the process closer and accessible to interested stakeholders, it’s a conduit that addresses the concerns and fears of such communities, reinforces key messages, thereby dispelling rumours and creating a better understanding of the Court’s judicial procedures.”
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Prior to the capture Ongwen in 2015, Coorom was just another quiet and tranquil village in post-conflict northern Uganda, struggling to re-establish itself after many years of fighting. However, after the capture of Ongwen, Coorom has risen to prominence, attracting researchers and transitional justice practitioners. In addition, since the trial of Ongwen started in December 2016, the ICC field office in Uganda has ensured that trial proceedings are screened to the residents of Coorom. Given that Coorom is largely inhabited by Ongwen’s kinsmen, this move by the ICC has attracted criticism from some people, especially those who consider themselves victims of Ongwen’s alleged crimes. This criticism is even more pronounced given that many people in Coorom that I spoke to think Ongwen deserves to be forgiven.
Asked why the court decided to conduct outreach in Coorom, Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC field outreach coordinator for Kenya and Uganda explained, “In addition to ensuring that victims and affected communities that fall within the scope of the case are provided adequate information and access to the proceedings against Dominic Ongwen, the outreach program also makes efforts to reach out to supporters or sympathizer communities and groups that show huge interest in following the proceedings. Coorom, being the birth place of Ongwen is therefore a community that has to see ’justice in motion’ – the conduct of a fair and transparent trial in a manner that guarantees due respect to the rights of all the parties and participants in the proceedings.”
The people of Coorom seem to be happy with this move by the ICC. “If anyone told me that Ongwen was so well dressed and can even take notes, I would have dismissed that as a lie. Now I see, therefore I believe,’’ said another community leader during one of the screening sessions.
I traveled to Coorom in late January to have a direct interaction with the residents there. While many of the people I interacted with were happy to be following the proceedings as a result of the initiative by the ICC, many were also direct and straightforward in voicing their opinion that Ongwen should be forgiven.
Just before I arrived in Coorom, I stopped at a large trading center called Olwal and approached a group of three youthful bodaboda (motorcycle) taxi riders who were seated by the roadside, greeted them, introduced myself, and engaged them in a friendly chat. One of the young men who identified himself as Robinson told me they had heard of the trial of Ongwen but had not had time to attend any of the community screening events being organized by the ICC field office. I asked them why, and one of his other colleagues called Godfrey told me they were too busy working to attend the trial. Another young man called Alfred who had joined us said he had been following the proceedings on and off through the radio.
We chatted for a while as I updated them about the trial of Ongwen, but there appeared to be little enthusiasm on their part. I then told them I was heading to Coorom to talk to the people there about the trial. In a move that surprised me, they immediately offered to come with me on condition that I would drop them off on my way back. I accepted as this was an opportunity to further chat with them about the trial. They piled into the car and we set off.
After we had driven for about a minute or two in silence, I asked them why they did not seem to be enthusiastic about following the trial of Ongwen.
Robinson, who was seated next to me in the front passenger seat, replied: “This trial is taking place in The Hague, at a very high level. It makes it very difficult for us to follow closely. Many people are also saying that he [Ongwen] is going to lose since he is being tried by a big court [the ICC].” His response attracted a laugh from his two colleagues in the back seat.
I then asked the other two what their opinion about the trial was. Godfrey said, “In my opinion, I think Ongwen should be forgiven because he was acting under orders of people higher than him. I am also told that he was abducted at a young age.”
Alfred concurred with Godfrey by saying, “Ongwen cannot be compared to Joseph Kony who started the war and formed the LRA. I heard that when Ongwen was asked by the judge to respond to the charges against him, he said it was the LRA to blame for all what happened and not him as an individual. I think I agree with him.”
Interestingly, the above opinion was what I would repeatedly hear from many people in Coorom for the next hour I was to spend there. We continued chatting as we drove, and a few minutes later we got to the small trading center that was the village of Ongwen. The trading center itself was so small, with only a few kiosks and huts in sight given that many people lived in the outskirts. It was also deserted with only a few women selling goods in the nearby market.
My arrival did not go unnoticed. I was soon surrounded by a group of youth and a few elderly people. I explained my mission to them and asked if they were comfortable chatting about the trial. No one had any objections, I spent the next hour casually chatting with them and walking around the trading center as I took notes. I narrowed my questions down to asking them their opinion about the ongoing trial of Ongwen and what they thought about the outreach being conducted by the ICC.
Generally, many people I talked to were happy with the live screenings being conducted by the ICC field office. A local leader said, “At least our fears are reduced when we see him in court, alive and healthy.” His opinion concurred with an earlier conversation I had had with Kamara where she had noted that, “They [people of Coorom] feel reassured seeing that Ongwen is well taken care of at the ICC and that he has a lawyer that represents his interests.”
A general consensus, however, seemed to be that Ongwen should be forgiven. The people cited reasons ranging from the fact that he was abducted and forced to fight, to saying he was acting under orders from Joseph Kony, and that he was not the only LRA commander to have committed crimes in northern Uganda.
One young man who identified himself as Jackson told me that “the program [live screening] by the ICC is enabling us to follow what is happening at the court, and we are grateful for that. However, many people are praying that Ongwen wins the case.”
Another young man called Patrick chipped in and said, “Ongwen should be forgiven because he did not join the LRA willingly. He also did not commit the crimes alone.”
I asked them why the majority of the people in Coorom were in favor of having Ongwen forgiven and if there were any people who had expressed a contrary opinion. Jackson replied before anyone else by saying, “Ongwen is our relative and the majority of people here are related to him.” A local leader called Mukora explained more patiently that “the majority of people here say he should be forgiven because he was abducted while young, but there are some few people who say he should be tried and convicted.”
In my short interaction with the few people I met in Coorom, I was not able to come across anyone with a contrary opinion.
I then asked them if they would be comfortable with having Ongwen coming back to live among them in the event that he was acquitted. This attracted mixed reactions, but the majority of people seemed to have no problem with Ongwen returning to live among them. A young man called Owiny replied, “It will be his choice. If he wants to come back and live here we shall welcome him.” Another young man called Patrick said, “I am not sure if Ongwen will want to come back and live in northern Uganda. I am sure he will be afraid because of the crimes he accused of committing. If he chooses to return to Uganda I think he will not stay in northern Uganda.”
I finally asked them how they would react to a guilty verdict given that the majority of the people in Coorom were calling for Ongwen to be forgiven.
The local leader called Mukora replied, “The people should not be saddened by a guilty verdict because that is part of the law. I only pray that people are properly sensitized on why he was convicted then they will accept the verdict.” His opinion was shared by many other people present.
Robinson, my new friend from the trip had the last word saying, “People in Coorom will not be happy with a guilty verdict, however, the law is the law and there is nothing we can do. The people will only need to understand why he had to be convicted. We also pray that if he is convicted they give him a sentence that takes into consideration the fact that he was abducted.”
As the trial of Ongwen continues, the above opinions from the people of Coorom indicate the mixed reactions that people in northern Uganda have had. It is also an indicator of the need for continuous outreach even in the aftermath of the trial. As significantly noted by Kamara, “The screening of the trial in such a community does not only bring the process closer and accessible to interested stakeholders, it’s a conduit that addresses the concerns and fears of such communities, reinforces key messages, thereby dispelling rumours and creating a better understanding of the Court’s judicial procedures.”
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
An ‘Opportunity of a Lifetime’ for Community Leaders from Northern Uganda
On December 6, the trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) started in The Hague. Ongwen is accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in former internally displaced persons’ camps of Odek, Lukodi, Pajule, and Abok, in northern Uganda. Ongwen has been in detention since January 2016 when he surrendered to the Séléka rebels in the Central Africa Republic and was transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to await trial.
To bolster victim participation, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, mobilized and sponsored a delegation of ten community representatives to attend the opening of Ongwen’s trial.
The delegation was led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana, the Paramount Chief of Acholi; accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama, the Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese; Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, the retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Uganda; Ambrose Oola, the Prime Minister of Ker Kwaro Acholi; and myself as the founder and director of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a non-governmental organization based in northern Uganda.
Among the delegation also were five community representatives from Lukodi, Pajule, Abok, and Odek.
As part of the visit, the participants not only had the opportunity to witness the commencement of Ongwen’s trial at the court’s new premises, but also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the ICC. Meetings were held with the Presidency and Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, as well as the parties and participants involved in the trial of Ongwen.
In a statement issued while in The Hague, the delegation noted that “the case of Dominic Ongwen remains very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda, and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.”
Many people in northern Uganda have on several occasions expressed the importance of ensuring that victims follow proceedings as an important aspect of victim participation. The ICC is the first international criminal justice court in history to allow victims to share their views and concerns during all stages of the proceedings through their legal representatives, which is enshrined in both the Rome Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It was therefore not surprising when all the community representatives were unanimous in expressing their joy at being able to travel to The Hague for this important occasion.
As Esther, from Pajule noted, “I am privileged to have travelled and confirmed with my own eyes that the ICC in fact exists. I saw Ongwen in the court, and this means we have not been told lies about his trial. Even if not all people were able to come, they have at least been represented by us.”
As Justin from Lukodi community said, “We were able to see Ongwen in the court. We saw that he was well dressed and he was treated with respect. The court also gave him time to speak.”
Patrick, a community representative from Odek said, “When I heard that few people had been selected I could not believe it. We saw Ongwen with our eyes even if we did not touch him. We saw the lawyers and interacted with them. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.”
As a result of various meetings held with different sections of the ICC, the participants were also able to get a better understanding of how the court functions, a factor that was also instrumental in increasing their understanding appreciation of the trial process. As Esther from Pajule said, “We were happy to hear about how the court works and how victims and witnesses are protected. This gives us confidence that our relatives who are participating will be protected.”
Justin from Lukodi agreed with the above opinion, noting that, “The functioning of the court was made clear to us. We toured the court and met with various representatives. This made us to believe that there is transparency at the ICC.”
The community representatives were also immensely impressed by the new structure that houses the ICC premises. Although many of the participants were overwhelmed by the security protocols in place, they thought the facilities contained in the building were excellent, including the courtroom and office spaces. As Justin from Lukodi said, “The setup of the court is very good. The courtroom is set in such a way that visitors can follow proceedings without interfering with the work of the judges and lawyers. This is not the case in Uganda where someone from the audience can easily reach the judges and lawyers and even attack them. The equipment being used is also very good, and we do not have this in Uganda.”
In addition to the delegation from Uganda, there were many other visitors also present in the public gallery for the first day of the hearing, including many students, journalists, and researchers. This is a matter that did not go down well with one of the community representatives from Abok who said, “Students and journalists were the majority in the court. This makes us to think that the court is being taken as a learning opportunity. There should have been more community and victims’ representatives.”
Over the course of two days, the community representatives attended the court sessions and watched as the prosecution team made its opening remarks. Some of the representatives later remarked that the gruesome pictures of the killings in their communities that were displayed by the prosecution evoked strong memories in them. In a comment that did not go well over with Archbishop Odama and Bishop Onono, Francisco Cox, one of the victims representatives, noted in his opening remarks that “[i]t is usually people that did not suffer consequences of Ongwen’s crimes that ask for forgiveness.” Otherwise all the community representatives felt that the hearing had gone well.
It can be concluded that the initiative by the ICC field office and Danish Embassy in Uganda achieved its intended impact of promoting community participation and increased the community representatives’ understanding and appreciation of the ICC. Furthermore, community representatives will be expected to engage in public outreach and share their experiences back home. However, as noted by one participant, to increase impact the court should consider bringing a larger delegation of people living in communities affected by the alleged crimes of the accused.
Ongwen’s trial resumes on January 16, 2017. International Justice Monitor will be following the trial, and regular updates will be posted to the LRA Trials page.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
To bolster victim participation, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, mobilized and sponsored a delegation of ten community representatives to attend the opening of Ongwen’s trial.
The delegation was led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana, the Paramount Chief of Acholi; accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama, the Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese; Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, the retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Uganda; Ambrose Oola, the Prime Minister of Ker Kwaro Acholi; and myself as the founder and director of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a non-governmental organization based in northern Uganda.
Among the delegation also were five community representatives from Lukodi, Pajule, Abok, and Odek.
As part of the visit, the participants not only had the opportunity to witness the commencement of Ongwen’s trial at the court’s new premises, but also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the ICC. Meetings were held with the Presidency and Judicial Division, the Office of the Prosecutor, the Registry, as well as the parties and participants involved in the trial of Ongwen.
In a statement issued while in The Hague, the delegation noted that “the case of Dominic Ongwen remains very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda, and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.”
Many people in northern Uganda have on several occasions expressed the importance of ensuring that victims follow proceedings as an important aspect of victim participation. The ICC is the first international criminal justice court in history to allow victims to share their views and concerns during all stages of the proceedings through their legal representatives, which is enshrined in both the Rome Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It was therefore not surprising when all the community representatives were unanimous in expressing their joy at being able to travel to The Hague for this important occasion.
As Esther, from Pajule noted, “I am privileged to have travelled and confirmed with my own eyes that the ICC in fact exists. I saw Ongwen in the court, and this means we have not been told lies about his trial. Even if not all people were able to come, they have at least been represented by us.”
As Justin from Lukodi community said, “We were able to see Ongwen in the court. We saw that he was well dressed and he was treated with respect. The court also gave him time to speak.”
Patrick, a community representative from Odek said, “When I heard that few people had been selected I could not believe it. We saw Ongwen with our eyes even if we did not touch him. We saw the lawyers and interacted with them. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.”
As a result of various meetings held with different sections of the ICC, the participants were also able to get a better understanding of how the court functions, a factor that was also instrumental in increasing their understanding appreciation of the trial process. As Esther from Pajule said, “We were happy to hear about how the court works and how victims and witnesses are protected. This gives us confidence that our relatives who are participating will be protected.”
Justin from Lukodi agreed with the above opinion, noting that, “The functioning of the court was made clear to us. We toured the court and met with various representatives. This made us to believe that there is transparency at the ICC.”
The community representatives were also immensely impressed by the new structure that houses the ICC premises. Although many of the participants were overwhelmed by the security protocols in place, they thought the facilities contained in the building were excellent, including the courtroom and office spaces. As Justin from Lukodi said, “The setup of the court is very good. The courtroom is set in such a way that visitors can follow proceedings without interfering with the work of the judges and lawyers. This is not the case in Uganda where someone from the audience can easily reach the judges and lawyers and even attack them. The equipment being used is also very good, and we do not have this in Uganda.”
In addition to the delegation from Uganda, there were many other visitors also present in the public gallery for the first day of the hearing, including many students, journalists, and researchers. This is a matter that did not go down well with one of the community representatives from Abok who said, “Students and journalists were the majority in the court. This makes us to think that the court is being taken as a learning opportunity. There should have been more community and victims’ representatives.”
Over the course of two days, the community representatives attended the court sessions and watched as the prosecution team made its opening remarks. Some of the representatives later remarked that the gruesome pictures of the killings in their communities that were displayed by the prosecution evoked strong memories in them. In a comment that did not go well over with Archbishop Odama and Bishop Onono, Francisco Cox, one of the victims representatives, noted in his opening remarks that “[i]t is usually people that did not suffer consequences of Ongwen’s crimes that ask for forgiveness.” Otherwise all the community representatives felt that the hearing had gone well.
It can be concluded that the initiative by the ICC field office and Danish Embassy in Uganda achieved its intended impact of promoting community participation and increased the community representatives’ understanding and appreciation of the ICC. Furthermore, community representatives will be expected to engage in public outreach and share their experiences back home. However, as noted by one participant, to increase impact the court should consider bringing a larger delegation of people living in communities affected by the alleged crimes of the accused.
Ongwen’s trial resumes on January 16, 2017. International Justice Monitor will be following the trial, and regular updates will be posted to the LRA Trials page.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Friday, 9 December 2016
Statement by Ugandan cultural, religious, community and civil society leaders attending the opening trial of Dominic Ongwen at the ICC in The Hague Netherlands – 5-8 December 2016 -
Statement by Ugandan cultural, religious,
community and civil society leaders attending the opening trial of Dominic
Ongwen at the ICC in The Hague Netherlands
– 5-8 December 2016 -
From 5 – 8 December, we attended the opening of
the trial of Dominic Ongwen in The Hague, The Netherlands as representatives of
our communities in Northern Uganda Led by His Highness Rwot David Onen Acana
the Paramount Chief of Acholi, accompanied by Archbishop John Baptist Odama the
Archbishop of Gulu Archdiocese, we not only had the opportunity to witness the
commencement of the trial of Dominic Ongwen in the Court’s new premises but
also met and exchanged ideas with representatives of the International Criminal
Court (ICC): Presidency and Chambers, Office of the Prosecutor, Registry, and
the parties and participants involved in the trial of Dominic Ongwen.
Dominic Ongwen has come before the ICC for
trial following an indictment for crimes against humanity and war crimes he is
alleged to have committed as a senior commander of the LRA.
Over the years during and after the conflict
in Northern Uganda, cultural, religious, community and civic leaders have been
the centerpiece for peace and reconciliation. They were instrumental in the
outcomes of the Juba peace process. Today, the case of Dominic Ongwen remains
very important to us because it is a milestone in defining one way in the
attempt to secure justice and accountability for the people of Northern Uganda,
and ultimately to help people reconcile with their past and move towards peace.
As leaders and representatives of various
groups and interests in the Acholi region, we note that various grave crimes
were committed in Northern Uganda during the time the LRA was active in Uganda;
the nature of the crimes committed violated traditional, Ugandan and
international law and therefore warranted action against perpetrators in terms
of securing justice for the victims and holding the perpetrators accountable.
With the ICC process, we believe that matters related to such crimes will be
adjudicated.
Beyond Dominic Ongwen’s specific case, the
Acholi people still have to contend with the broader question of justice and
accountability arising from the conflict. The fact that the LRA is still out
there obliges us to remain focused on the broader issues of peace
reconciliation, justice and accountability. Indeed other mechanisms do exist in
Uganda that have been extensively used in handling matters relating to
obtaining accountability from perpetrators and securing justice for victims in
the LRA conflict, including the law in Uganda and the traditional law norms,
values and practices of the Acholi people. Though mechanisms and certain
definitions may differ, the Acholi justice system gives a broader context and
definition to questions of accountability and justice which is hinged primarily
on restorative justice other than a punitive one.
Since justice is a long process especially when
it is searching for truth, we call upon our people to allow the judicial
process and those who wish to testify to come and do so without any fear of
reprisals. We also urge the international community and the Government of
Uganda to remain focused on the wider question of transitional justice in Northern
Uganda which remains largely unattended to and is grossly affecting many lives.
This trial is at its beginning and we hope to
see it continue smoothly and be beneficial to the victims of Northern Uganda.
We express our gratitude to the Danish Embassy
in Uganda for its financial assistance and to the ICC for having planned and
coordinated the visit.
Rwot David Onen Achana
Archbishop John Baptist Odama
Bishop Onono Onweng
Olaa Ambose
Innocent Olwoc
Patrick Sila Lakwonyero
Lino Owor Ogora
Betty Piloya
Esther Aol
Justine Ochan
Monday, 5 December 2016
Hopes and Expectations: Perceptions of Victims and Civil Society on the Eve of Ongwen’s Trial
The trial of Dominic Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is due to start Tuesday at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, with opening statements from the prosecution and the victims’ representatives. Ongwen is charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, allegedly committed in the former IDP camps of Odek, Lukodi, Pajule, and Abok in northern Uganda.
In light of this, the International Justice (IJ) Monitor conducted a brief consultation with community members and select representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) working in northern Uganda to get an understanding of what their expectations about the trial was.
The overall reactions were mixed. While many of them were happy that the trial was finally getting underway, they also expressed reservations about certain aspects. Even though all the respondents who were consulted expressed their support for the trial, many still stressed that the trial is not a comprehensive solution for solving post-conflict challenges that continue to exist in northern Uganda.
As Francis Opio from Grassroots Reconciliation Group (GRG) said, “Stating whether the trial will be a good thing for bringing justice to people in northern Uganda would be relative. It should be noted that when it comes to rebuilding relationships, an aspect that is very important in our culture, the ICC is not helpful.”
Expressing a similar view, Chris Ongom, the Director of the Uganda Victims’ Foundation (UVF) said, “The trial of Ongwen will address a very tiny part of the justice. It will send a signal to international community that Uganda is committed to fighting impunity. However, the suffering and causes of the war in the northern is rooted in the structural systems of governance so this trial won’t bring total justice to the people.”
In regard to the above, some of the participants who were consulted suggested complementary measures such as the use of traditional justice mechanisms for the promotion of reconciliation and the pursuit of accountability domestically.
Another expectation that was frequently mentioned by respondents who were consulted was the need for a fair trial based on evidence and the importance of ensuring the impartiality and neutrality of the court. Rosalba Oywa, who heads the People’s Voice for Peace (PVP) said, “I will keep my fingers crossed. I think they will penalize Ongwen if he is found guilty and if the verdict is based on evidence.”
James Engemu, a human rights activist from Teso sub-region said, “I expect that the trial will be a true hearing and that the verdict will rely on real evidence not purported issues. The judgment should be very impartial.”
Hellen Acham, a peace-building practitioner from Lango sub-region said, “As far as the hearing is concerned, we are looking forward to the impartiality of the court. The victims must not be intimidated, and the court must administer justice. It should not end up like the Kenyan one where some of the victims were threatened.”
In addition to the above, most respondents also expressed the need for a speedy trial in order to ensure justice for the victims. As Nathan Ebiru, the head of the Amuria District Development Association (ADDA) said, “Being a victim myself and a person working for the victims in Uganda, I expect the trial to be expedited in favor of victims.”
All in all, most people who were consulted agreed that the ultimate determinants of whether or not justice will have been attained at the conclusion of the trial will be the victims themselves. In the words of Oywa, “It shall depend on the victims…Victims are the ones who are key in saying whether they are satisfied or not.”
With the ICC investigations focused mainly on four case locations linked to crimes allegedly committed by Ongwen (Lukodi, Odek, Abok, and Pajule), IJ Monitor asked participants whether they believed that the trial would serve as a mechanism for brining justice to all victims in northern Uganda, including areas outside the Acholi sub-region. There were mixed reactions to this question. Some respondents believed that the limited geographic scope did not matter and would still result in justice for all victims in northern Uganda. “If the trial is based on critical evidence, victims of Ongwen’s crimes will get healing in Teso, Lango, and Acholi. If the victims see Ongwen [acquitted] and walking free, they will get angry,” said Engemu.
In the words of Acham, “In one way or another, the victims will feel that there is someone concerned with their suffering. It will bring justice to northern Uganda. Even the current prevailing peace in northern Uganda is being enjoyed because of the indictment of Ongwen.”
Other respondents, however, believed that the current scope of investigations excluded victims from other sub-regions. According to Ebiru, “There are quite a number of victims who have not been reached in Teso sub-region. The areas that have been identified in the charge sheet do not extend to Teso. I don’t see much hope in this. But what every victim and community wants is that Dominic Ongwen must be made accountable for his crime.”
Respondents who were consulted also expressed expectations regarding victim participation. Many reiterated the need to ensure that victims follow proceedings. It was the expectation of many that the trial would be broadcast live. As Opio from GRG said, “Live screening of the trial process will allow victims to follow the process giving them ground to react to some of the issues when called upon.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office in Uganda has set up viewing centers in the four communities of Lukodi, Pajule, Odek, and Abok. According to Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC Field Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, “A viewing center will also be opened in Coorom, the birthplace of Ongwen to provide access of the judicial processes to his family members, his relatives, and clan members.” Additional viewing centers have also been set up in Gulu town and in Kampala to enable people outside the affected communities to participate.
The ICC field office has also made arrangements to web stream proceedings from the opening of the trial in the Acholi language and on two radio stations in northern Uganda. According to Kamara, “For the first time, the court has provided the options for the proceedings to be web streamed in Acholi. This means that followers can actually select from the list of languages and follow their preference. So Mega FM Radio and Gulu FM Radio will broadcast live from the Acholi channel. It has not happened so far in other cases.”
At all these centers the ICC field office has provided the equipment necessary for conducting live streaming broadcasts from The Hague and has conducted outreach to sensitize and encourage many people to go to these centers, which are open to the public free of charge. However, it is not known whether the ICC will conduct live broadcasts throughout the trial itself.
Findings from the consultation also revealed that respondents still strongly believe that the physical presence of victims during hearings is important for victim participation in the trial. As Acham said, “Victim participation is very important. There will come a moment where some victims will request to attend hearings by themselves. Since there are very many victims, election of people to represent them is important.”
According to Ongom of the UVF, “The court says that they don’t have money to facilitate victims [to attend the trial]. It sends doubt to the victims, because the small window of hope is being narrowed. The victims should have been air lifted to attend the trial, if truly [the court] values the victims.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, chose 10 influential representatives from the affected community to attend the opening of the trial. In a press briefing conducted in Uganda, Kamara said, “These people will attend and follow the proceedings at The Hague so that they explain what they will have witnessed upon return. This will help build trust of the community in the ICC processes.”
All in all, respondents expected to be kept informed during the entire duration of the trial and not simply at the beginning or at the end. As Ebiru said, “I recommend frequent consultation with the victims throughout the trial and provision of feedback to them on a frequent basis. Victims should know how far the case has gone and must be kept informed at all times.”
In addition to the above, a few respondents also expressed the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected. In the words of Oywa, “Participation is important to the public, and the ICC has worked towards ensuring that this happens. But I am not sure what is being done towards victims and witnesses’ protection. This trial is sensitive and can put the victims at risk which would not be a good thing.”
A final expectation that was expressed by all respondents was the need to ensure that reparations are implemented at the conclusion of the trial in the event that Ongwen is found guilty.
In the words of Engemu from Teso, “If Ongwen is convicted, then the court should provide reparations for the victims. Victims are in need and reparations must be expedited in order to provide justice. The Trust Fund for Victims should play its role to the vulnerable victims.” It is clear from community members, as can be seen in previous blog posts, that reparations will be central in determining the success of Ongwen’s trial.
In conclusion, as presented by the views expressed above, the trial of Ongwen has generated excitement and anxiety in equal measures. It is clear that while many people want a speedy and fair trial, they also believe that important aspects, such as victim participation and reparation, must be addressed if the trial is to be viewed as successful.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
In light of this, the International Justice (IJ) Monitor conducted a brief consultation with community members and select representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) working in northern Uganda to get an understanding of what their expectations about the trial was.
The overall reactions were mixed. While many of them were happy that the trial was finally getting underway, they also expressed reservations about certain aspects. Even though all the respondents who were consulted expressed their support for the trial, many still stressed that the trial is not a comprehensive solution for solving post-conflict challenges that continue to exist in northern Uganda.
As Francis Opio from Grassroots Reconciliation Group (GRG) said, “Stating whether the trial will be a good thing for bringing justice to people in northern Uganda would be relative. It should be noted that when it comes to rebuilding relationships, an aspect that is very important in our culture, the ICC is not helpful.”
Expressing a similar view, Chris Ongom, the Director of the Uganda Victims’ Foundation (UVF) said, “The trial of Ongwen will address a very tiny part of the justice. It will send a signal to international community that Uganda is committed to fighting impunity. However, the suffering and causes of the war in the northern is rooted in the structural systems of governance so this trial won’t bring total justice to the people.”
In regard to the above, some of the participants who were consulted suggested complementary measures such as the use of traditional justice mechanisms for the promotion of reconciliation and the pursuit of accountability domestically.
Another expectation that was frequently mentioned by respondents who were consulted was the need for a fair trial based on evidence and the importance of ensuring the impartiality and neutrality of the court. Rosalba Oywa, who heads the People’s Voice for Peace (PVP) said, “I will keep my fingers crossed. I think they will penalize Ongwen if he is found guilty and if the verdict is based on evidence.”
James Engemu, a human rights activist from Teso sub-region said, “I expect that the trial will be a true hearing and that the verdict will rely on real evidence not purported issues. The judgment should be very impartial.”
Hellen Acham, a peace-building practitioner from Lango sub-region said, “As far as the hearing is concerned, we are looking forward to the impartiality of the court. The victims must not be intimidated, and the court must administer justice. It should not end up like the Kenyan one where some of the victims were threatened.”
In addition to the above, most respondents also expressed the need for a speedy trial in order to ensure justice for the victims. As Nathan Ebiru, the head of the Amuria District Development Association (ADDA) said, “Being a victim myself and a person working for the victims in Uganda, I expect the trial to be expedited in favor of victims.”
All in all, most people who were consulted agreed that the ultimate determinants of whether or not justice will have been attained at the conclusion of the trial will be the victims themselves. In the words of Oywa, “It shall depend on the victims…Victims are the ones who are key in saying whether they are satisfied or not.”
With the ICC investigations focused mainly on four case locations linked to crimes allegedly committed by Ongwen (Lukodi, Odek, Abok, and Pajule), IJ Monitor asked participants whether they believed that the trial would serve as a mechanism for brining justice to all victims in northern Uganda, including areas outside the Acholi sub-region. There were mixed reactions to this question. Some respondents believed that the limited geographic scope did not matter and would still result in justice for all victims in northern Uganda. “If the trial is based on critical evidence, victims of Ongwen’s crimes will get healing in Teso, Lango, and Acholi. If the victims see Ongwen [acquitted] and walking free, they will get angry,” said Engemu.
In the words of Acham, “In one way or another, the victims will feel that there is someone concerned with their suffering. It will bring justice to northern Uganda. Even the current prevailing peace in northern Uganda is being enjoyed because of the indictment of Ongwen.”
Other respondents, however, believed that the current scope of investigations excluded victims from other sub-regions. According to Ebiru, “There are quite a number of victims who have not been reached in Teso sub-region. The areas that have been identified in the charge sheet do not extend to Teso. I don’t see much hope in this. But what every victim and community wants is that Dominic Ongwen must be made accountable for his crime.”
Respondents who were consulted also expressed expectations regarding victim participation. Many reiterated the need to ensure that victims follow proceedings. It was the expectation of many that the trial would be broadcast live. As Opio from GRG said, “Live screening of the trial process will allow victims to follow the process giving them ground to react to some of the issues when called upon.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office in Uganda has set up viewing centers in the four communities of Lukodi, Pajule, Odek, and Abok. According to Maria Mabinty Kamara, the ICC Field Outreach Coordinator for Kenya and Uganda, “A viewing center will also be opened in Coorom, the birthplace of Ongwen to provide access of the judicial processes to his family members, his relatives, and clan members.” Additional viewing centers have also been set up in Gulu town and in Kampala to enable people outside the affected communities to participate.
The ICC field office has also made arrangements to web stream proceedings from the opening of the trial in the Acholi language and on two radio stations in northern Uganda. According to Kamara, “For the first time, the court has provided the options for the proceedings to be web streamed in Acholi. This means that followers can actually select from the list of languages and follow their preference. So Mega FM Radio and Gulu FM Radio will broadcast live from the Acholi channel. It has not happened so far in other cases.”
At all these centers the ICC field office has provided the equipment necessary for conducting live streaming broadcasts from The Hague and has conducted outreach to sensitize and encourage many people to go to these centers, which are open to the public free of charge. However, it is not known whether the ICC will conduct live broadcasts throughout the trial itself.
Findings from the consultation also revealed that respondents still strongly believe that the physical presence of victims during hearings is important for victim participation in the trial. As Acham said, “Victim participation is very important. There will come a moment where some victims will request to attend hearings by themselves. Since there are very many victims, election of people to represent them is important.”
According to Ongom of the UVF, “The court says that they don’t have money to facilitate victims [to attend the trial]. It sends doubt to the victims, because the small window of hope is being narrowed. The victims should have been air lifted to attend the trial, if truly [the court] values the victims.”
In anticipation of this demand, the ICC field office, with support from the Danish Embassy in Uganda, chose 10 influential representatives from the affected community to attend the opening of the trial. In a press briefing conducted in Uganda, Kamara said, “These people will attend and follow the proceedings at The Hague so that they explain what they will have witnessed upon return. This will help build trust of the community in the ICC processes.”
All in all, respondents expected to be kept informed during the entire duration of the trial and not simply at the beginning or at the end. As Ebiru said, “I recommend frequent consultation with the victims throughout the trial and provision of feedback to them on a frequent basis. Victims should know how far the case has gone and must be kept informed at all times.”
In addition to the above, a few respondents also expressed the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected. In the words of Oywa, “Participation is important to the public, and the ICC has worked towards ensuring that this happens. But I am not sure what is being done towards victims and witnesses’ protection. This trial is sensitive and can put the victims at risk which would not be a good thing.”
A final expectation that was expressed by all respondents was the need to ensure that reparations are implemented at the conclusion of the trial in the event that Ongwen is found guilty.
In the words of Engemu from Teso, “If Ongwen is convicted, then the court should provide reparations for the victims. Victims are in need and reparations must be expedited in order to provide justice. The Trust Fund for Victims should play its role to the vulnerable victims.” It is clear from community members, as can be seen in previous blog posts, that reparations will be central in determining the success of Ongwen’s trial.
In conclusion, as presented by the views expressed above, the trial of Ongwen has generated excitement and anxiety in equal measures. It is clear that while many people want a speedy and fair trial, they also believe that important aspects, such as victim participation and reparation, must be addressed if the trial is to be viewed as successful.
Lino Owor Ogora is the Director and Co-Founder of the Foundation for Justice and Development Initiatives (FJDI), a local Non-Government Organization based in Gulu District that works with children, youth, women and communities to promote justice, development and economic recovery in northern Uganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)